Well, most people who read this either don't know or already know my view on same-sex rights. And those who have discussed this quite deeply with me (read: Brady) know that I'm not exactly jumping for joy over the way the LDS Church got involved in California. If you really need an explanation, it's because I was just waiting for this to happen:

Even just an opinion, I think this is bad on many levels. First of all, we opened the door for intense and incorrect scrutiny which does more harm for the church than Prop 8 passing will do good.

To me, the whole 'marriage' issue is a semantic one. First of all, marriage to me will always be what marriage has been. As of right now, marriage to me is COMPLETELY different from marriage is to my next-door neighbor. Does that mean his marriage isn't a marriage? What one person or group (or nation) calls marriage will not ever affect what marriage is to me.
Same-sex couples have been asking primarily for three rights: the right to file a joint-tax return/insurance, the right to hospital visitation, and the right for inheritence. None of those infringe on my rights, therefore I don't see why they shouldn't be entitled to them. Brady made the argument that when married, they would be able to adopt--that argument is weakened by the fact they already can adopt. Brett offered a solution that I agree with. He coined it the Abbott and Castello act, which would allow every citizen the right to name someone (any sex) as their "partner," to receive these benefits. That would enable a college student to name his roommate as someone who could visit him in the hospital, those without close, immediate families to name a benefactor (w/o a will, obviously), and even allow a household of roommates to file a house tax return if so desired. A good solution? Accepting homosexuals and granting them the same benefits heterosexuals receive doesn't mean that you condone the practice at all. What do you think?


  1. This is the only time you will hear me bring religion into this debate. I agree that the issue here should not and cannot be about the moral correctness of homosexuality. The argument needs to be about equality and rights. It seems that because we as a church disagree with the morality of homosexuality, we must also oppose gay rights. But there is a disconnect in this line of thinking that ignores our primary responsibility to people outside (or inside) the church with different moral views. It is not our responsibility to force people to be a certain way, even if that way is the 'correct' way. we are obligated to spread the gospel and allow everyone to choose for themselves how they want to live. We must love and accept everyone. No one is without sin, yet everyone (even sinners) still deserve the rights to life and happiness. Our role is not to determine what God's will is and enforce it, it is to love everyone regardless of how they choose to live their lives. Passing legislation forcing everyone to get baptized into our faith would force everyone to do a good thing, but wouldnt help anyone get into heaven. Banning gay marriage may seem like its doing a good thing, but isnt helping anyone get closer to God. To deny same-sex couples, who love their partners just as much as heterosexual couples, basic rights of partnership is cruel and uncharitable. Remember, man is born to choose for himself good or evil. Who are we to punish those who choose a different life than us? I do not condone the act at all, but I feel very strongly that same-sex couples and gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else, and that it is prejudice to deny them rights because they are different than the norm. The more we try and force our way of life, the more we lose the chance to truly make positive change.

  2. I agree. If you want a more in depth analysis, let me know. But generally, I agree with you.